Responses to scientists and religious belief items, and occupation of respondents, across studies.

<p>SD’s in parentheses. All items scored on scales ranging from 0 (<i>not at all)</i> to 100 (<i>very much so</i>).</p

Perceived endorsement of moral foundations by scientist versus control target, scored on 5-point scales ranging from 1 (<i>strongly disagrees</i>) to 5 (<i>strongly agrees</i>), controlling for perceived atheism of scientists.

<p>Differences were significant for loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and purity/degradation (all <i>ps</i> < .01). Error bars show standard errors of the mean.</p

Evaluations of preferences and values, and likability, of the target groups (Study 10).

<p>Within items, all means differ significantly from each other at <i>p</i> < .01 (Bonferroni adjusted); the only non-significant difference was liking of atheists versus regular persons). The third item was presented to participants from 0 (<i>follow the norms</i>) to 100 (<i>explore</i>), but reverse-scored in the current Fig. Error bars show standard errors of the mean.</p

Evaluations of motivational trade-offs of scientists and control targets, Study 10.

<p>All means differ at <i>p</i> < .001. Error bars show standard errors of the mean.</p

Conjunction error rates (percentages) in Studies 1–7 for each category of targets.

<p>All target groups differ at <i>p</i> < .01, except for scientist and atheist targets in Studies 4–5, and scientists and control targets in Studies 6–7.</p

The Immoral Landscape? Scientists Are Associated with Violations of Morality

<div><p>Do people think that scientists are bad people? Although surveys find that science is a highly respected profession, a growing discourse has emerged regarding how science is often judged negatively. We report ten studies (<i>N</i> = 2328) that investigated morality judgments of scientists and compared those with judgments of various control groups, including atheists. A persistent intuitive association between scientists and disturbing immoral conduct emerged for violations of the binding moral foundations, particularly when this pertained to violations of purity. However, there was no association in the context of the individualizing moral foundations related to fairness and care. Other evidence found that scientists were perceived as similar to others in their concerns with the individualizing moral foundations of fairness and care, yet as departing for all of the binding foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Furthermore, participants stereotyped scientists particularly as robot-like and lacking emotions, as well as valuing knowledge over morality and being potentially dangerous. The observed intuitive immorality associations are partially due to these explicit stereotypes but do not correlate with any perceived atheism. We conclude that scientists are perceived not as inherently immoral, but as capable of immoral conduct.</p></div

Stereotypes of scientist, experimental psychologist, atheist, lawyer, and regular person targets in Study 9.

<p>All scales ranged from 1 (<i>totally disagree</i>) to 100 (<i>totally agree</i>). SD’s in parentheses.</p

Stereotype measure, Study 10.

<p>Whereas ‘Can be mad’ stereotype did not significantly vary across groups, all ‘Can be bad’ means differ significantly at <i>p</i> < .05. ‘Can be dangerous’ was higher for scientist target than for regular person target (<i>p</i> = .053) and atheist target (<i>p</i> < .05). Error bars show standard errors of the mean.</p

Online_Tables_for_submission_R_and_R3 – Supplemental material for A Sense of Obligation: Cultural Differences in the Experience of Obligation

<p>Supplemental material, Online_Tables_for_submission_R_and_R3 for A Sense of Obligation: Cultural Differences in the Experience of Obligation by Emma E. Buchtel, Leo C. Y. Ng, Ara Norenzayan, Steven J. Heine, Jeremy C. Biesanz, Sylvia Xiaohua Chen, Michael Harris Bond, Qin Peng and Yanjie Su in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</p

buchtel_online_appendix – Supplemental material for A Sense of Obligation: Cultural Differences in the Experience of Obligation

<p>Supplemental material, buchtel_online_appendix for A Sense of Obligation: Cultural Differences in the Experience of Obligation by Emma E. Buchtel, Leo C. Y. Ng, Ara Norenzayan, Steven J. Heine, Jeremy C. Biesanz, Sylvia Xiaohua Chen, Michael Harris Bond, Qin Peng and Yanjie Su in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</p